Failing Keith Starmer can't beat Corbyn's average despite record anti-Tory sentiment

Starmer constantly reminds us his father was a toolmaker, fitting since the man made a tool.

We are often told that moderating in politics will bring electoral gains. For many months now, the usual flock has crowed, as proof, Starmer’s performance. Here is Matthew Yglesias celebrating Starmer’s upcoming victory. Mocking the idea that appealing more to Labor’s base to get them to turn out and vote would help him do better:

Despite record-breaking dissatisfaction with the Conservative government, far higher than the dissatisfaction before the 2017 and 2019 elections, Starmer has failed to beat the average of Corbyn’s two general election performances. In fact, despite wholly favorable conditions, he only moderately exceeded Corbyn’s 2019 results, widely panned as a disaster. In percentage terms, his performance was only about 1.7% better than Corbyn’s 2019 performance, and 6.2% worse than Corbyn’s best performance.

Labour under Starmer got about 33.8% in the vote count. Despite this result- astonishingly awful in the circumstances- he won because the rightwingers split their vote between the Conservatives and Reform. Imagine, 73% of the population thinking the Tories are rubbish, yet getting only 34%! Imagine, inflation recently at 11% yet this is all Labor can manage. A serious argument can be made that, given the economy, given how long the Tories had been in, and given nearly three-quarters disapproval this is one of the worst results in psephology- certainly in British Psephology.

I’m sure Starmer’s apologists will have excuses. For years though, we were told that there were to be no excuses for Corbynism. The facts are facts, the numbers are numbers and invite no relitigation. His electoral performance was all the proof that anyone should ever need that leftism can’t work at the ballot box. A common refrain: “Anyone else would be at 50% in the polls” under such a failing Tory government. Well, the Tory government has failed much more in the intervening years, yet Starmer couldn’t match 2017 Corbyn. By those very standards then, I declare electoral pragmatism has shown itself neither electorally oriented nor pragmatic.

And remember the comparatively high primary vote of Corbyn was managed despite sabotage from the internal Blairite opposition. Starmer has not had to deal with any significant internal opposition because he got rid of them all.

It’s also worth noting that Starmer, despite population growth, got fewer raw votes than Corbyn in 2017 & 2019 and seemingly would have lost had not reform run, since Reform+Tories was much greater than Labour.

Yglesias and his ilk argue in favor of moderation by the following logic. Since elections are won by winning over voters who swing between the left and the right, moderate voters must be the key to elections, and naturally, the way to win moderate voters is to moderate.

In truth, voters who swing between the left and the right do not necessarily do so because they are moderate rather they do so because they hold a mixture of very leftwing and rightwing positions. A common profile would be:

1. Abolish immigration (this is an exaggeration, but only slightly).

2. Greatly increase NHS funding.

3. Cut taxes on people who earn as much as me.

4. Greatly increase taxes on people who earn more than me.

5. Greatly increase social spending.

6. Give people on benefits Stern Lectures on the importance of Work Ethics but don’t actually cut them off or let them starve to death.

7. Solve unemployment by directly creating a bunch of jobs.

8. Solve inflation by punishing profiteering.

9. Find the bad people and hurt them.

Moderating one’s positions, in the sense of seeking an average between left and right will not necessarily appeal to swing voters- in many cases, the opposite.

All the blessings I have to the UK left, heavens knows you need them. Yet the enemy is weaker then they appear.

"Rise like Lions after slumber

In unvanquishable number—

Shake your chains to earth like dew

Which in sleep had fallen on you—

Ye are many—they are few."